wCHAP.28
(9/15/98, 10/16/03)
CHAPTER XXVIII
MANAGING CHANGE IN AN ENLIGHTENED COMMUNITY
A Science of Ethics must find a new way to manage change so it occurs in a more satisfactory way. Exponential "progress" can prevent quality living just as surely as the stagnation during the Dark Ages did. The current pattern cannot be tolerated in an Enlightened Community. In current society any given change is resisted by some element of society. Parts of society even attempt to prevent discussion of some kinds of change. Other elements of society blindly cause changes as rapidly as they can with little consideration for the possible consequences of this change. Neither approach is appropriate for an era experiencing an information explosion. The destructive impact on the ozone layer due to modern technology is only a small glimpse of the possibilities of the future.
To a significant degree those opposing change produce an environment which discourages in-depth, objective study prior to introduction of changes. Because change often requires a toe-to-toe battle with the advocates of status quo, there is no excess energy to develop a rational, careful, considered, programmed study to explore ramifications prior to introducing changes. Frequently today to study a project that might have significant effects is a technique to block change. Study is often a way to obscure the issue and get it lost in the back alleys of committee inaction.
Up to this point the ecology movement has been a force opposing change. It has, therefore, been a mixed blessing. Most persons who work on ecological concerns take the approach that the earth of a few thousand years ago is the ideal state. The changes made by human beings are seen as bad per se because they changed the conditions that previously existed. They have no grander vision than that!
A Science of Ethics must provide a different approach. First, we must recognize that the Universe is constantly in a state of flux. The dying out of species, the eroding of the earth, changes in the atmosphere, etc. have gone on throughout the history of earth. Our primary concern must be to understand as completely as possible how all of these forces work and the consequences of those things we do.
We must weigh all the costs and benefits of what we do and make the wisest choices we can. But we must always keep in mind that we can never know the long range effects of almost any act, whether it will work for or against human well-being. To some degree we are like those who steer a run-away wagon. We must keep constantly alert and attempt to steer around those barriers that stand in the way of what is best for human beings. Nevertheless, what is best for all those plants and animals -- known and unknown -- that we depend upon for our continued existence is defined by what is best for human beings.
We must accept change as an essential element of individual growth and human survival as a species. Once we do that we must then focus on the fact that too rapid change can produce chaos and also lead to the destruction of the human species. We must find the middle ground in this matter by developing Planning & Coordinating Institutions that function for the good of all not only for the mental well-being of a misdirected, anti-thinking few. But, somehow we must protect this process from being overwhelmed by the bureaucratic mentality that tries to pigeon hole everything and resists restructuring the system when new data requires.
In this connection society's growth and development must be coordinated and developed into a long term plan so that changes are not introduced until they have been thoroughly studied and it appears that the long term beneficial effects will outweigh the harmful effects.
How can this be done without totally throttling "progress"? We must find a balance. Part of our problem has been that we have not had clarity on the necessary issues to be considered when exploring whether or not to adopt a new technology, idea, or change. If we keep clearly in mind that the goal is to help more persons achieve a SBLIHM (a Sustainable Belief that one's LIfe Has Meaning) we then have a way of assessing whether or not something is likely to be a benefit or not, or at least whether or not it has been a benefit. In order to accomplish the foregoing it will be necessary to involve many more people in the scientific effort so that all aspects of an issue that appear relevant can be studied before changes are introduced. If we keep firmly in focus that the objective of "progress" is to improve the quality of life for all people, we can perhaps be aided in finding the proper restraint while we move relentlessly forward.
Also, since the NINTH WAY -- Increase knowledge-- (see Volume I, Chapter Two) says that every person must be involved in advancing knowledge if they are to achieve a SBLIHM, there will be many more persons available to work on all these questions for which answers are necessary. At the same time we must keep firmly in mind that we never know what all the effects of any change will be (Just as we do not know all the effects of not making a given change.) We must always keep in mind that nothing is so bad that it does not produce some good effects. Nothing is so good that it does not produce some bad effects. But we do know that there will be both beneficial and harmful effects. On the balance is there a net gain or loss in terms of human well-being? That is the critical question. Almost everyone recognizes the truth in the pedestrian statement, "There are no unmixed blessings." However, few of us seem to understand the depth of the significance of this concept.
Anyone who has observed life is aware of the foregoing truism. However, most of us behave as though it is a surprise to us. We produce a vaccine that saves 1,000 lives per year and 50 vaccinated persons die from the effects of the vaccine. We want to find out who to sue. What incompetent boob is responsible for my son dying? Why me?
We have a terrible war. Millions are killed. Others go to college as a result and live a fuller, more complete life. A flood destroys our village. Work is given to the unemployed to rebuild. Etc., etc., etc.
Too bad we have been misled to believe that bliss is the goal and that when a problem is solved, we should never have to deal with another problem again. Utopia is not a problem-free environment. It is a place where there is a structure and encouragement for all to work on relevant problems. In reality the solution to every problem opens the door to many, more difficult problems.
Human beings are problem-solving organisms. We joy in the process. We pine to be employed in worthy tasks. In an Enlightened Community, all people would be able to participate in the process of solving the myriads of problems that confront humanity. As indicated above, the foregoing is the essence of the Ninth Way: Work to increase all knowledge and all seminal and artistic creations.
Even more important we must realize that change in the individual and in the world is a critical assumption of a Science of Ethics. It is only through change that we grow in knowledge and move from IGNORANCE toward TRUTH. TRUTH is not provided by any group. We can only work toward TRUTH. We can never possess it. Those persons are farthest from it who think they possess it since they don't even understand its nature. This means that we currently have IGNORANCE! Everyone of us. No human being ever had nor ever will have TRUTH. If we are lucky we are moving toward it, but we can never reach it. At most a group can provide an individual the tools and encouragement to move toward TRUTH rather than lead them away from it as groups are more likely to do. In fact it is only this process of individual questioning, exploring, thinking, and developing ideas that can help any group move from its ignorance toward TRUTH.
And it is only by focusing attention on change and how it supports the ability of ever more persons to become Enlightned Persons that we will build Enlightened Communities.